By the end of 2025, Pepsico will eliminate all artificial ingredients from its most popular food products in the USA. A news that immediately made it talk about itself, greeted by some as a great turning point, by others-more rightly-like the minimum union for a giant that for decades has been filling the shelves with ultra-processed snacks and hyper-zuccherate drinks.
The decision comes after the appeal of the secretary to US health and human services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who together with the FDA commissioner, Dr. Martin Makary, announced a plan to ban the synthetic oil -based dyes present in many food products. Among these, the Citrus Red No. 2, the orange B, the Red 40, the Yellow 5, the Blue 1 and others composed for some time under accusation for the potential health effects, especially in children.
As stated by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the goal is to completely eliminate these additives from the American food chain by 2026, promoting a transition to natural alternatives.
The reaction of Pepsico
Ramon Laguarta, CEO of Pepsico, announced that over 60% of the company’s products portfolio is already without artificial dyes. Brands such as Lay’s, Doritos and Tostitos, he said, will be completely “cleaned up” by the end of the year. A move that, according to the manager, confirms the company’s pioneering role in reducing sodium, sugars and non -healthy fats in its snacks.
A declaration that sounds more as an attempt to rewrite the past than as an honest admission: if really pepsico (and other similar companies) had moved thus in advance to improve the healthiness of the products, perhaps we would not have reached the point where a federal ban is needed to correct the shot.
Eliminating artificial ingredients known for their potential adverse effects – from allergic reactions to behavior disorders – is not an act of generosity, it is a duty. The giants of the Food & Beverage, which for decades built their economic empires on attractive snacks for color and flavor but poor from a nutritional point of view, are increasingly called to an assumption of responsibility.
But talking about “Salutista” or “consumer victory” is a little too optimistic: in reality it is above all of respecting new rules that limit the freedom to change the food at will (but there is still a lot to do).
To give strength to this decision are also the voices of those who, such as the nutritionist and author Liana Werner-Gray, have been reporting the damage of the synthetic ingredients for years. Follow of a “Earth Diet” based on full and unprocessed foods, Werner-Gray told Fox News Digital the benefits obtained on its health by eliminating artificial dyes: less anxiety, skin rates, tiredness and uncontrollable cravings of junk food.
An experience shared by many increasingly aware consumers, who ask for transparency and quality, not only reassuring slogans.
A necessary step (but not enough)
Farewell to artificial ingredients is certainly an important stop, but it is not enough. There is still a long way to go on the front of the reduction of sugar levels, the caloric content, the origin of the raw materials and the environmental impact of the production.
In a market where “natural” is often only a marketing slogan, companies must demonstrate with the facts – and with the composition of their products – to really want to change. And consumers must continue to inquire, to read the lists of the ingredients, to ask for more.
